Sunday, December 20, 2009

You Don't Bring a Gun to a Snowball Fight

In DC yesterday, a bunch of people were having a big time, a snowball fight, maybe two hundred people lined up across the street from each other at 14th and U. Apparently the snowball fight was set up on Twitter, everybody was having a lot of fun.

At one point a police car got stuck in the snow and the snowballers helped him out and the crowd cheered. The City Paper quotes a witness:

"... A couple moments later, at the intersection, heading west along U was this big maroon Hummer. A small faction of people decided to target it with snowballs. They're throwing snowballs at the Hummer. It turns out the driver of the Hummer is a detective. He gets out. He's waving a walkie talkie. It's not going well. Then he starts waving a gun. He hadn't identified himself at this point. There was a point where things cooled off a bit, more police showed up, and he identified himself at that point. The name was Det. Baylor. My guess was B-A-Y-L-O-R."

This was a plainclothes cop in an unmarked vehicle, threatening to shoot somebody because snowballs hit his Hummer.

Don't watch this video if you or anyone in the room is sensitive to strong language. People are upset and the audio is not censored. It starts with the crowd chanting "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight."

It is really scary to see this guy in the middle of the intersection with a pistol, defending his Hummer from a snowball attack with a big police revolver. A guy who would kill somebody for throwing a snowball at his fortress-on-wheels should not be wearing a badge.

Oh, and this is good, the City Paper has a message from Assistant Chief Peter Newsham: "There was no police pulling guns on snowball people." Uh huh, well in this video I see two cops with their guns drawn. You watch this detective in the video, see the anger in his eyes, see him shoving people and provoking them, getting in their faces, he's so mad, all these young people out here having fun and not respecting his Hummer!

14 Comments:

"(Dec. 20) -- Members of the U.S. military who become pregnant while serving in northern Iraq now face the possibility of a court-martial or jail time, Stars and Stripes newspaper reports.

Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, who oversees the area that includes Kirkuk, Tikrit, Mosul and Samarra, set a policy in place last month that makes pregnancy a punishable offense.

The rule applies to anyone who becomes pregnant or impregnates another service member, even if they are married.

Standard military policy calls for a pregnant soldier to be removed from the battle area within two weeks.

The northern Iraq policy, which was reviewed by military attorneys, takes that a step farther.

"The redeployment of the pregnant soldier creates a void in the unit and has a negative impact on the unit's ability to accomplish its mission. Another soldier must assume the pregnant soldier's responsibilities," Army spokesman Maj. Lee Peters told the newspaper.

Cucolo has defended the policy, calling it a "black and white issue."

"I've got a mission to do," he said. "I'm given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them. So I'm going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the twelve months we are in the combat zone.""

Back on topic, I was impressed with how the first uniformed police officer sought to handle the matter.

The plainclothes detective plainly acted inappropriately. On the other hand, whoever through a snowball at him after the initial confrontation was an immature jerk.

Grownup behavior seems to be in short supply. But, hey, the minority members of the United States Senate act like jerks, willing to say anything that pops into their minds, regardless of whether it is true, willing to utterly subvert the idea of majority rule in an already malapportioned body. Sadly, immature behavior is infectious.

Now that we have replaced, in the White House, the First Cowboy with the First Grownup, we at least have a shot at wisely confronting our problems. But it is going to take a lot of political effort and grass-roots support to continue making progress. The GOP is trying to relive 1994, when the failure of a Democratic President and Congress to produce results depressed the turnout of Democratic voters, leading to 38% turnout in the mid-term elections -- and the ensuing GOP take-over of Congress, which spelled the end of the Clinton Presidency as anything more than a holding action against the onslaught of the Right Wing.

It is the civic responsibility of those who supported Obama in 2008 to not let this happen again.

anon-B above has proved she'll argue for anything as long as it's part of the Obama administration

it's called idolatry

"I was impressed with how the first uniformed police officer sought to handle the matter."

he handled things appropriately

he was "impressive" only in contrast to the nut from the Humvee

"The plainclothes detective plainly acted inappropriately."

he acted like the kind of scary psycho that should be disqualified from law enforcement

"whoever through a snowball at him after the initial confrontation was an immature jerk"

well, yeah, but it was a big crowd and the humvee guy incited it

"But, hey, the minority members of the United States Senate act like jerks,"

they're no worse then the, very temporarily, majority party

"willing to say anything that pops into their minds,"

you mean like when Harry Reid said opposition to national health insurance was like support for slavery?

"regardless of whether it is true,"

oh, you mean like when Barry O said he wanted health care reform to contain costs

"willing to utterly subvert the idea of majority rule in an already malapportioned body"

the majority of Americans oppose the health care bill that is about to pass on a strict party line vote

the Democrats couldn't care less about "majority rule"

"Sadly, immature behavior is infectious."

yes, like holding Congress in Session until early in the morning during blizzards and scheduling a vote for late Christmas Eve because of immature impatience

"Now that we have replaced, in the White House, the First Cowboy with the First Grownup,"

you mean the grown-up that spends all his time jetting around the world

"we at least have a shot at wisely confronting our problems"

if you call socialism wise

"But it is going to take a lot of political effort and grass-roots support to continue making progress"

that's what it will take to get Barry re-elected, and it won't happen

"The GOP is trying to relive 1994, when the failure of a Democratic President and Congress to produce results depressed the turnout of Democratic voters, leading to 38% turnout in the mid-term elections -- and the ensuing GOP take-over of Congress, which spelled the end of the Clinton Presidency as anything more than a holding action against the onslaught of the Right Wing"

thank you, David, for admitting this

the things Clinton gets so much credit for were actually attributable to the de facto president at the time, Newt Gingrich

"It is the civic responsibility of those who supported Obama in 2008 to not let this happen again"

It would be better if you would stick to the subject of this blog entry, that is a sworn police officer drawing his weapon in anger against people throwing snowballs. This is especially clear when you write,The plainclothes detective plainly acted inappropriately. On the other hand, whoever through a snowball at him after the initial confrontation was an immature jerk.

"Inappropriately"??? You have got to be kidding? It was unprofessional and potentially criminal. And then your second sentence is intended rationalize what the officer did.

What would you say if it was a private citizen with a carry and conceal weapons permit? The fact of the matter is that it would not likely happen for at least two reasons. First, DC does not allow private citizens to protect themselves from criminals...real criminals, not snow ball throwers. And second, if the individual with the concealed weapon had his car hit by snowballs he/she would know from the training received that this would not constitute a lawful use of their weapon. Furthermore, the CCW permit holder knows that they would risk losing their license as the result of such a violation of law.

I seriously doubt the "detective" in question (especially since he is black) will receive anything more than a slap on the wrist).

"teachers like you, that discourage thinking outside the box are a big part of the problem in public education"

That is such an hysterically-funny contention on your part! Are you able to give examples of how I "discouraged" thinking outside of the box in my students, "Anonymous"?

Quite the contrary. I, and my colleagues, took great pains to make sure that our students stated their opinions and backed up their reasoning with facts, not just opinions...unlike your propensity to shoot off at the mouth when attempting to steer discussion toward your unsupported rants, off-the-topic diversions, and "it's all about me and my unquestionable know-it-all" assertions.

Are you a product of our public school system? If so, we have a perfect example here of how we sometimes fail in public education. If not, then the "private" schools failed miserably in attempting to educate you. As the epigram puts it: "You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make it drink".

Teachers have always had to deal with malcontents and trouble-makers and "Mr. Smarty-pants", know-it-all pupils,(quite similar to what we find here in the guise of "anonymous" posters) but somehow our schools in this country have done remarkably well, considering the obstacles.

Orin...your statement: "I seriously doubt the "detective" in question (especially since he is black) will receive anything more than a slap on the wrist)." is incredibly racist and offensive.

Why? Because I hold this police officer to the same standard as every other police officer? "Offensive"? Sure...I guess so.

Even though I have more often than not disagreed with your arguments or positions on issues, I never took you for a bigot or a proponent of racism, but maybe I was wrong.

Racism is where one race is held in a position of inferiority over another race. For example, if I had stated that this particular incident only proves that blacks cannot be trusted with the power and authority of the position of police officer then I would indeed be bigoted, if not also racist. This I did not think, say or write...

This is what I did write:I seriously doubt the "detective" in question (especially since he is black) will receive anything more than a slap on the wrist).as this is generally a fact of life in big cities, where political figures (and make no mistake, a police chief is a political figure) must weigh the political fallout of punishing a member of a protected class, as this black detective most certainly is...

This reminds me of when I worked at a state university in California. In the administrative department I worked in a fellow co-worker started to exhibit what anyone would describe as unprofessional conduct, up to and including throwing a chair across a room. This co-worker made work life difficult for everyone that had to work near her, especially her supervisor (a saintly boss if there ever were one). Still, in spite of workplace behavior that would have put anyone else in jeopardy of their job, this behavior was endured. It was recognized that there were two reasons this person was not fired. One, she was a woman, and two she was an out-of-the-closet lesbian. We were all relieved when she finally tendered her resignation and moved on. Now, you can say that this is a homophobic and bigoted comment to make when members of an unprotected group personally witness a member of a protected class being held to a lower professional standard, something that was historically considered to be the epitome of racism.

Tell us that you didn't really mean to make that offensive statement.

If you have been on this blog for any length of time you will know that I do not cower or quiver into silence at the charge of bigotry or racism. I don't because I know that they are two charges that more often than not are made for political, not moral, advantage. A regrettable side effect of this willful (or is it just laziness?) misuse of language is that it causes many to approach the accusation of bigotry and racism with skepticism or cynicism.

One, she was a woman, and two she was an out-of-the-closet lesbian. We were all relieved when she finally tendered her resignation and moved on. Now, you can say that this is a homophobic and bigoted comment to make when members of an unprotected group personally witness a member of a protected class

Oh brother, Orin.

She was a member of *two* protected classes, just like you are. You are both protected on the basis of your *gender* and your *sexual orientation.* Should someone discriminate against either of your on the basis of either of those two characteristics, you'd both be equally protected.

"She was a member of *two* protected classes, just like you are. You are both protected on the basis of your *gender* and your *sexual orientation.* Should someone discriminate against either of your on the basis of either of those two characteristics, you'd both be equally protected."

looks like we have a regular commenter here who just doesn't get it

no, anon-B, heterosexuals are not protected to the extent of homosexuals in areas with sexual preference protection laws

How often does someone get denied housing or a job promotion because they are a member of a majority group such as heterosexual or white, compared with people who are members of minority groups like LGBT and black folks? It's rare, but when it happens, the same law that provides penalties for discrimination does so for members of both majority and minority groups.

For example, white Allan Bakke sued and won his case of "reverse discrimination" against college admission minority quotas back in the 70's and more recently, we all heard about the white firefighters who won their job promotion discrimination case in Boston.

Maybe you don't hear about them so much, but there are other such "reverse discrimination" cases in the court system. Why? Because the anti-discrimination laws protect us all from being discriminated against.

..Several states have recently faced legal battles waged by whites claiming they were unfairly treated in favor of protecting and promoting blacks and Hispanics.

Earlier this month in South Carolina, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a historically black college on behalf of three white faculty members who complained they were forced from or denied jobs because of their race.

Simultaneously, federal officials said they had reached a settlement agreement, with Benedict College paying $55,000 to each instructor, including an art teacher who said she was denied promotion in favor of a black professor. The institution denied the accusations.

Last week, a white woman in Texas filed a federal lawsuit against an assisted-living center, contending she was discriminated against and harassed by Hispanics because she didn't speak Spanish.

And in Florida, two transportation companies sued Broward County over efforts to steer public contracts to minority-owned businesses. The firms, which had provided car service for the handicapped and the elderly, claimed they were paid lower fees than other contractors because they didn't comply with affirmative action requirements...